Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm • Hacker News Board

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#231

Post by lukeschlather » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:04 PM UTC

stasomatic wrote: post #203

sassbadger wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have donated to them for many years and will stop now. I will not support any kind of union busting.

They have enough employees to need a union and a board? It's a CRUD PHP site that I could run from a VPS (joking ofc, but not that much off). I've never worked in an industry where unionization was a thing, but my general understanding is that the unions are protectionist dreaming of things that were true before but not today, but they want to keep things as they were. Good luck. I've benefited from Wikipedia, but I…

Wikimedia requires a board. IMO that board should include at least one representative selected by the employees (i.e. a union rep.) It has one seat reserved for the founder.

This governance question doesn't go away if another Wikimedia rises from the ashes. You still will still need a board making decisions, and someone needs to pick the members of the board. Right now there are 8 seats selected by "the community," 7 seats selected by the board, and 1 seat selected by the founder.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#232

Post by nativeit » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #214

cool_dude85 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What’s a union going to do if (doing a lot of work there) AI significantly reduces the demand for software engineers or tech workers generally? Aside from general job protection stuff, the general answer would be that they can ensure that some of the productivity gains go to employees rather than employers. Let's say the company has been so much more efficient thanks to AI that they earn an extra 100 million in reve…

Isn't Wikimedia a non profit? Who exactly are the employers on the other side negotiating with the union here? They're higher on the hierarchical structure, but they're not actually stakeholders the same as there are in private for-profit companies.

Some of the largest unions in the world are for teachers, police, and government employees. I’m not sure why you would think a for-profit company is uniquely subject to its staff unionizing?

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#233

Post by alt227 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

chneu wrote: post #164

llm_nerd wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money laundering has become a default catch all term for "monetary misuse / suboptimal allocation". At least among the general public. I worked in AML tech for a bank earlier in my career. I put up a fight against this misuse of terminology for a while, but eventually just gave up. Just embrace that everything is money laundering to many people and life is easier.

Words in general don't really mean much anymore, online anyway. It reminds me of when health fads take off. Everyone "has OCD" or whatnot. I'd talk to people and they've given me a rundown of who they claim they were, but lol, they weren't that person. Everyone can identify and use words however they want. Once it goes viral the meaning of the word changes. It's difficult to parse who people are nowadays cuz of it. T…

I gave up when they changed the definition of literally to mean both literally and not literally, resulting in the word having zero purpose at all anymore as it is impossible to know the intention of the person saying it.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#234

Post by alt227 » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:07 PM UTC

llm_nerd wrote: post #89

estearum wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money laundering has become a default catch all term for "monetary misuse / suboptimal allocation". No it definitely has not

Among the generally misinformed public, which I was clearly referring to, yes, it absolutely has. Everything is money laundering. Do you think I was literally saying the financial definition has changed?

Unfortunately the official definition of 'literally' now means both exact and exaggeration, so it is impossible to know what you are saying here /s

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#235

Post by lukeschlather » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:07 PM UTC

ymolodtsov wrote: post #124

I understand why factory workers or store clerks might want a union but I'd never understand why tech workers should. I guess except the game developers but the most realistic threat vector for them is the studio shutting down, so a union wouldn't really help.

The Wikimedia board consists of 7 seat selected by the board, 8 seat from the broader wikimedia community, and 1 founder seat. As part of the broader wikimedia community I think there should be at least one board seat selected by the employees of Wikimedia. So never mind why the workers want a union, as someone who has donated money to Wikimedia, I want the nonprofit to have a workers' union as part of its governance structure (because Wikimedia is itself a union/collective/cooperative.)

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#236

Post by gruez » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

jasonvorhe wrote: post #222

dannyw wrote: post #135

Some people here think Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to keep Wikipedia up. That's a subset of their mission. I attribute nearly all of the blame to WMF, because their donation ads are quite deceptive. The actual, public mission of Wikimedia Foundation: > The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in th…

So donating to Wikipedia actually funds commercial events? wtf.

Of all the controversial stuff that WMF does, "funding photographers to take royalty free photos for use on wikipedia" seems fairly low down the list.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#237

Post by Ma8ee » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

mchusma wrote: post #229

alsetmusic wrote: post #204

As a strong supporter of unions, that's the end of my donations. I've probably donated fewer than a dozen times, but definitely more than five or six. I felt reasonably good about it and went on with my day, no hesitation about supporting them. That's done. Fwiw, unions often have support pages where you can donate or buy merch to support. One of my favorite tshirts advocates for a union that was trying to form at a…

Curious why you support unions in general? It’s kind of like saying “I support governments” or “I support companies”.

It’s like saying ”I support worker’s rights.” There is in general a huge power imbalance between the employer and the employee, and a union does a bit to rectify that.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#238

Post by lukeschlather » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

senordevnyc wrote: post #174

inigyou wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't parse this comment in relation to the context.

They’re pointing out that calling the federal government “a big union” is inaccurate, and reasons why.

It's accurate. The constitution of the United States explicitly describes it as a union in the preamble.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#239

Post by nativeit » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

I make a very small (relatively) salary as a self-employed IT consultant and support provider, but I still take ~$25 each month to split between the organizations and charities I find worthwhile. For a long time, that’s included a $3/mo recurring contribution to Wikipedia (or WMF, really). I have long believed Wikipedia to be a vital source of free information, and a surprisingly effective and enduring community that’s bent towards truth.

I still believe that. But I do not ever want to see my very limited charitable contributions be spent on anti-worker programs, so I’ll be ending my recurring subscription today, and for the moment I will simply add it to the the contributions I donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who voluntarily recognized their worker’s union, as WikiMedia Foundation should.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation refuses union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

#240

Post by inigyou » Sun, Aug 02, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

alt227 wrote: post #219

shimman wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty cool and worthy endeavor. Having public domain pictures of cultural events seems like a worthy cause IMO.

The point is when you go to Wikipedia and they are on a funding drive with their very prominent ads for donation requests, they dont mention any of this. They make it sound like wikipedia is very much at risk of dying due to lack of funds when in reality they are looking for more funding for programmes like this, which is where a lot of the mistrust and 'deceptive advertising' opinions come from.

They could tell us which programs.